Context: I recently learned that the commonly repeated claim that classic Greece and Rome was scientifically and technologically stagnant is not the historic consensus and has not been so for decades. It is a common knowledge today that no serious historian believes the middle ages to be stagnant but I feel the claim that Greece and Rome was technologically locked in time is still fairly prevalent, even in academic circles. Of course, among historians not specializing in the antique world.
The actual point is that the periods are similar in advancement, with an edge to the medieval period if anything. If you damn the medieval period for stagnation you’re absolutely dunking on Romans spreading their advancements over literally a thousand years, or the Greeks and Persians getting their minds absolutely blown by the idea of “what if phalanxes, but with longer spears”